On Mac OS version 10.12.6. with the Buchla in stand alone mode. I've created a map on a nanoKontrol2 that at this point uses sliders and knobs to control the sliders in the two oscillators and the Low Pass Gate. Saved and restored while I evaluate the software.

However I discover that the mapping on the pitch and frequency sliders of the two oscillators goes away if I change the Quantize switch position. And returns when I switch it back.

I have done and extensive/exhaustive test but I haven't yet found any other interactions among interface controls.

Is this expected behaviour? If so, how is one supposed to work with this? It's far from intuitive.

I can confirm this. It's not good as you need 2 hardware controls to control the same parameter slider, unless you have a DAW or other possibilities where you can assign multiple parameters to the same hardware control.

In my DAW the Quantized and the Unquantized automation parameters actually is two different parameters, even if they are controlled by the same sliders on the GUI. So the behavior seems to be in the design. But to me it's wrong. Even in a DAW the parameter in effect is depended on the quantize switch setting, so it make no sense in any way it's like this.It also require two automation lanes/ setups as it is. It's doubble work and confusing.

I don't find this to be exspected behavior.

Why is it so Arturia? Is this something that has been overlooked?

EDIT: I suddenly remembered this https://forum.arturia.com/index.php?topic=91831.0But Arturia it's not good you have to remap a control everytime you have a preset using quantize or not.If the mapping was saved with a preset, then it would be nice, and a little better, but still there would be troubles in DAWS using other assignment methods. EDIT END

I don't find the Arturia response adequate, mainly because it assumes a use-case that Arturia sees as poor/unlikely.

However, Arturia isn't paying (a lot) for this product and trying to use it. It's _entirely_ likely that, in the course of developing a patch, the musician will want to experiment with the quantized versus the unquantized versions of an oscillator set-up. That the musician is forced to switch gears, reprogram the mappings of his or her controller is just poor design. Convenient for the developers of the software for keeping easy track of parameters in the code; inconvenient for the user for making music efficiently.

With all the brouhaha about homage to tradition, quality of emulation, playability, this is a very strange posture for the company to adopt. I'm glad I haven't purchased this product.

Hi all, sorry for the delay.As LBH said, this issue has been spotted on another topic (thanks LBH, as usual )

"I don't find the Arturia response adequate, mainly because it assumes a use-case that Arturia sees as poor/unlikely."So yes, it has been done by design . But the answer i gave was purely personal, and "live performance" was in my mind. i even used the IMHO acronym. But that's not the debate.

Anyway, i'll log this immediately in our bugtracker, and hope this issue will be considered on a future update (don't have no info about the schedule yet)